Microsoft Says Next Windows Won’t Be As Annoying

So says the headline.

XP is bad enough and from what I hear Vista is worse. Why can't they develop an operating system that doesn't require you to REBOOT every time you make a software change? Every time an automatic update comes in, like every week, I have to live with a nagging dialog asking for permission to reboot.

Linux had this shit right back since verison 1.0.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

About eliasross

Blogging before the word "blog" was invented.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Microsoft Says Next Windows Won’t Be As Annoying

  1. Dancho says:

    I think stability wise, it is better than it used to be…My argument would be that need to redo the filesystem to begin with. I think biggest problem is that Windows filesystems (FAT, NTFS) are strict-locking type of filesystem, which means users can't hotswap the file, which means software changes requires reboot, even if it not a software.I think the biggest problem of Windows is that it is designed in a way so people can't do stupid thing with it; like deleting files while application is using them, for example. Linux allows that as image of the executables and libraries are loaded on the memory during its execution. (of course, if critical file are lost during execution, then subsequent execution won't work; and will make the system unbootable if critical system is deleted or moved this way.)It is certainly annoying, that many "userland" programs would still requires full system reboot; and some of them even don't need reboot technically; mere restart of explorer.exe will do, but I think it's just that stupidity factor that coming in, again.Personally, I like the way Linux handles this. The way Windows do this is annoying as hell.

  2. genman says:

    Reading this Wikipedia article on file locking in Windows, it seems that Windows does support less strict file locking, like UNIX, but uses strict file locking by default. It says that strict locking by default is done for compatibility reasons for MS-DOS programs.One way Windows could be less annoying would be if it reported on which processes locked a particular file. There is this tool called handle which I use when I need to find (and usually quit or kill) the process locking a file. It would be better if instead of "Access Denied" you got back something like "Application Process Outlook has locked this file for read-write access.".The problem with Windows (and UNIX often) is it will tell you you can't do something, but never why you can't do something.

  3. Dancho says:

    I agree. Yeah, those sysinternal tools are quite useful. I don't see any reason Microsoft can't implement feature like handle built into the system!

Leave a Reply to genman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s